S Matthew Liao
S. Matthew Liao
Scroll
Director of the Center for Bioethics
Arthur Zitrin Professor of Bioethics
-
Professional overview
-
Dr. Matthew Liao uses the tools of philosophy to study and examine the ramifications of novel biomedical innovations.
A speaker at TEDxCERN, Dr. Liao discussed whether it is ethical for someone to erase certain aspects of their memories and how doing so might affect that individual's identity. He has also given a TED talk in New York and been featured in the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and other numerous media outlets.
The author and editor of four books, Dr. Liao provides the academic community with a collection of human rights essays. In The Right to be Loved, he explores the philosophical foundations underpinning children's right to be loved, and proposes that we reconceptualize our policies concerning adoptions so that individuals who are not romantically linked can co-adopt a child together.
Dr. Liao provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics. He offers students the opportunity to explore the intersection of human rights practice with central domains of public health and regularly teaches normative theory and neuroethics. His courses address how the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined and ethical issues arising out of new medical technologies such as embryonic stem cell research, cloning, artificial reproduction, and genetic engineering; ethical issues raised by the development and use of neuroscientific technologies such as the ethics of erasing traumatic memories; the ethics of mood and cognitive enhancements; and moral and legal implications of "mind-reading" technologies for brain privacy.
To learn more about Dr. Liao and his work, visit his website and blog.
-
Education
-
AB, Politics (Magna Cum Laude), Princeton University, Princeton, NJDPhil, Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
-
Honors and awards
-
Outstanding Academic Title, The Right to Be Loved, Choice Review (2016)TEDx Speaker at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)TEDx Speaker, New York, NY (2013)Humanities Grant Initiative, NYU (2011)Big Think Delphi Fellow (2011)
-
Areas of research and study
-
BioethicsEpistemologyMetaphysicsMoral Psychology
-
Publications
Publications
A critique of some recent victim-centered theories of nonconsequentialism
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., & Barry, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
Law and PhilosophyAbstractRecently, Gerhard Overland and Alec Walen have developed novel and interesting theories of nonconsequentialism. Unlike other nonconsequentialist theories such as the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE), each of their theories denies that an agent's mental states are (fundamentally) relevant for determining how stringent their moral reasons are against harming others. Instead, Overland and Walen seek to distinguish morally between instances of harming in terms of the circumstances of the people who will be harmed, rather than in features of the agent doing the harming. In this paper, we argue that these theories yield counterintuitive verdicts across a broad range of cases that other nonconsequentialist theories (including the DDE) handle with relative ease. We also argue that Walen's recent attempt to reformulate this type of theory so that it does not have such implications is unsuccessful.A defense of intuitions
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2008Journal title
Philosophical StudiesVolume
140Issue
2Page(s)
247-262AbstractRadical experimentalists argue that we should give up using intuitions as evidence in philosophy. In this paper, I first argue that the studies presented by the radical experimentalists in fact suggest that some intuitions are reliable. I next consider and reject a different way of handling the radical experimentalists' challenge, what I call the Argument from Robust Intuitions. I then propose a way of understanding why some intuitions can be unreliable and how intuitions can conflict, and I argue that on this understanding, both moderate experimentalism and the standard philosophical practice of using intuitions as evidence can help resolve these conflicts.A Human Rights Approach to AI and Digital Governance
AbstractLiao, S. M., Cheung, K., & Matalon, T. (n.d.).Publication year
2025Abstract~A Right Response to Anti-Natalism
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2023Journal title
Res PhilosophicaVolume
100Issue
4Page(s)
449-471Abstract~A Short Introduction to the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Page(s)
1-42Abstract~Acknowledgments
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., & O’neil, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Page(s)
xAbstract~After Prozac
AbstractLiao, S. M., Matthew Liao, S., & Roache, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2014Page(s)
245-258AbstractProzac’s introduction in the late 1980s, caused a furor and focused debate on the acceptability of a drug that could do more than merely cure illness, pharmacological mood enhancement – that is, the use of drugs to improve mood beyond a level that is merely normal or healthy. As the possibilities and demand for mood enhancement increase, existing legislation will prove inadequate, designed as it is to regulate pharmaceuticals mainly for therapeutic use. This chapter explains why mood enhancement might be desirable, explores some key ethical issues associated with it, and suggests how policy makers can respond to ensure that people use mood enhancement safely and responsibly. Whether it is appropriate to enhance one’s mood might also depend on the manner in which the mood is experienced. While unpleasant states like depression may be appropriate and valuable in some cases, they can be disruptive and disabling if they continue indefinitely.After Prozac
AbstractLiao, S. M., Savulescu, J., Meulen, (Ruud H., Kahane, G., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2011Page(s)
245-256Abstract~Agency and human rights
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Matthew Liao, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2010Journal title
Journal of Applied PhilosophyVolume
27Issue
1Page(s)
15-25AbstractWhat grounds human rights? How do we determine that something is a human right? James Griffin has persuasively argued that the notion of agency should determine the content of human rights. However, Griffin’s agency account faces the question of why agency should be the sole ground for human rights. For example, can Griffin’s notion of agency by itself adequately explain such human rights as that against torture? Or, has Griffin offered a plausible explanation as to why one should not broaden the ground for human rights to include other elements of a good life such as freedom from great pain, understanding, deep personal relations, and so on? These concerns have been raised regarding Griffin’s agency account, but in his new book, On Human Rights, Griffin has offered new arguments in support of his view that agency is the sole ground for human rights. In this paper, I examine these new arguments, and I argue that Griffin’s arguments are ultimately unsuccessful.Are 'ex ante' enhancements always permissible?
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2005Journal title
American Journal of BioethicsVolume
5Issue
3Page(s)
23-25Abstract~Are Intuitions Heuristics?
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Abstract~Bias and Reasoning: Haidt’s Theory of Moral Judgment
AbstractLiao, S. M., Brooks, T., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2011Page(s)
108-127Abstract~Bioethics : Current Controversies
AbstractLiao, S. M., Matthew Liao, S., & O’neil, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Page(s)
1-11Abstract~Biological Parenting as a Human Right
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Journal title
Journal of Moral PhilosophyVolume
13Issue
6Page(s)
652-668AbstractDo biological parents have the right to parent their own biological children? It might seem obvious that the answer is yes, but the philosophical justification for this right is uncertain. In recent years, there has been a flurry of philosophical activity aimed at providing fresh justifications for this right. In this paper, I shall propose a new answer, namely, the right to parent one's own biological children is a human right. I call this the human rights account of parental rights and I shall explain how this account is better than these other alternatives.Cell-based interventions for neurologic conditions : Ethical challenges for early human trials
AbstractLiao, S. M., Mathews, D. J., Sugarman, J., Bok, H., Blass, D. M., Coyle, J. T., Duggan, P., Finkel, J., Greely, H. T., Hillis, A., Hoke, A., Johnson, R., Johnston, M., Kahn, J., Kerr, D., Kurtzberg, J., Liao, S. M., McDonald, J. W., McKhann, G., … Faden, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2008Journal title
NeurologyVolume
71Issue
4Page(s)
288-293AbstractBackground: Attempts to translate basic stem cell research into treatments for neurologic diseases and injury are well under way. With a clinical trial for one such treatment approved and in progress in the United States, and additional proposals under review, we must begin to address the ethical issues raised by such early forays into human clinical trials for cell-based interventions for neurologic conditions. Methods: An interdisciplinary working group composed of experts in neuroscience, cell biology, bioethics, law, and transplantation, along with leading disease researchers, was convened twice over 2 years to identify and deliberate on the scientific and ethical issues raised by the transition from preclinical to clinical research of cell-based interventions for neurologic conditions. Results: While the relevant ethical issues are in many respects standard challenges of human subjects research, they are heightened in complexity by the novelty of the science, the focus on the CNS, and the political climate in which the science is proceeding. Conclusions: Distinctive challenges confronting US scientists, administrators, institutional review boards, stem cell research oversight committees, and others who will need to make decisions about work involving stem cells and their derivatives and evaluate the ethics of early human trials include evaluating the risks, safety, and benefits of these trials, determining and evaluating cell line provenance, and determining inclusion criteria, informed consent, and the ethics of conducting early human trials in the public spotlight. Further study and deliberation by stakeholders is required to move toward professional and institutional policies and practices governing this research.Computational ethics
AbstractLiao, S. M., Awad, E., Levine, S., Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., Conitzer, V., Crockett, M. J., Everett, J. A., Evgeniou, T., Gopnik, A., Jamison, J. C., Kim, T. W., Liao, S. M., Meyer, M. N., Mikhail, J., Opoku-Agyemang, K., Borg, J. S., Schroeder, J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., … Tenenbaum, J. B. (n.d.).Publication year
2022Journal title
Trends in Cognitive SciencesVolume
26Issue
5Page(s)
388-405AbstractTechnological advances are enabling roles for machines that present novel ethical challenges. The study of 'AI ethics' has emerged to confront these challenges, and connects perspectives from philosophy, computer science, law, and economics. Less represented in these interdisciplinary efforts is the perspective of cognitive science. We propose a framework – computational ethics – that specifies how the ethical challenges of AI can be partially addressed by incorporating the study of human moral decision-making. The driver of this framework is a computational version of reflective equilibrium (RE), an approach that seeks coherence between considered judgments and governing principles. The framework has two goals: (i) to inform the engineering of ethical AI systems, and (ii) to characterize human moral judgment and decision-making in computational terms. Working jointly towards these two goals will create the opportunity to integrate diverse research questions, bring together multiple academic communities, uncover new interdisciplinary research topics, and shed light on centuries-old philosophical questions.Confidence Distortions in Addiction: Explaining the Difficulty Problem in Recovery
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2025Abstract~Current Controversies in Bioethics
AbstractAbstractBioethics is the study of ethical issues arising out of advances in the life sciences and medicine. Historically, bioethics has been associated with issues in research ethics and clinical ethics as a result of research scandals such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and public debates about the definition of death, medical paternalism, health care rationing, and abortion. As biomedical technologies have advanced, challenging new questions have arisen for bioethics and new sub-disciplines such as neuroethics and public health ethics have entered the scene. This volume features ten original essays on five cutting-edge controversies in bioethics written by leading philosophers. I. Research Ethics: How Should We Justify Ancillary Care Duties? II. Clinical Ethics: Are Psychopaths Morally Accountable? III. Reproductive Ethics: Is There A Solution to the Non-Identity Problem? IV. Neuroethics: What is Addiction and Does It Excuse? V. Public Health Ethics: Is Luck Egalitarianism Implausibly Harsh? S. Matthew Liao and Collin O’Neil’s concise introduction to the essays in the volume, the annotated bibliographies and study questions for each controversy, and the supplemental guide to additional current controversies in bioethics give the reader a broad grasp of the different kinds of challenges in bioethics.Designing humans : A human rights approach
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2019Journal title
BioethicsVolume
33Issue
1Page(s)
98-104AbstractAdvances in genomic technologies such as CRISPR‐Cas9, mitochondrial replacement techniques, and in vitro gametogenesis may soon give us more precise and efficient tools to have children with certain traits such as beauty, intelligence, and athleticism. In this paper, I propose a new approach to the ethics of reproductive genetic engineering, a human rights approach. This approach relies on two claims that have certain, independent plausibility: (a) human beings have equal moral status, and (b) human beings have human rights to the fundamental conditions for pursuing a good life. I first argue that the human rights approach gives us a lower bound of when reproductive genetic engineering would be permissible. I then compare this approach with other approaches such as the libertarian, perfectionist, and life worth living approaches. Against these approaches, I argue that the human rights approach offers a novel, and more plausible, way of assessing the ethics of reproductive genetic engineering.Disclosing clinical trial results : Publicity, significance and independence
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., Sheehan, M., & Clarke, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2009Journal title
American Journal of BioethicsVolume
9Issue
8Page(s)
W3-W5Abstract~Do mitochondrial replacement techniques affect qualitative or numerical identity?
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Matthew Liao, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
BioethicsVolume
31Issue
1Page(s)
20-26AbstractMitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs), known in the popular media as ’three-parent’ or ’three-person’ IVFs, have the potential to enable women with mitochondrial diseases to have children who are genetically related to them but without such diseases. In the debate regarding whether MRTs should be made available, an issue that has garnered considerable attention is whether MRTs affect the characteristics of an existing individual or whether they result in the creation of a new individual, given that MRTs involve the genetic manipulation of the germline. In other words, do MRTs affect the qualitative identity or the numerical identity of the resulting child? For instance, a group of panelists on behalf of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has claimed that MRTs affect only the qualitative identity of the resulting child, while the Working Group of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB) has argued that MRTs would create a numerically distinct individual. In this article, I shall argue that MRTs do create a new and numerically distinct individual. Since my explanation is different from the NCOB’s explanation, I shall also offer reasons why my explanation is preferable to the NCOB’s explanation.Do Older People Have a Right to Be Loved?
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2022Page(s)
110-126AbstractThe population of older adults is growing. Worldwide, the number of persons aged 80 years or over is expected to rise from 137 million to 425 million between 2017 and 2050. As people become older, many live alone and are therefore at increased risk of being socially and emotionally isolated, which is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects including dementia and increased mortality. At the same time, research shows that older persons benefit mentally and physically from feeling socially and emotionally connected. This raises the question of whether older persons need emotional connections and whether they have a right to such emotional connections, that is, whether they have a right to be loved. Elsewhere, S. Matthew Liao has argued that children have a right to be loved. In this chapter, his goal is to explore whether we can make a similar argument for older adults.Ethical and policy issues relating to progenitor-cell-based strategies for prevention of atherosclerosis
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., Goldschmidt, P. J., Sugarman, J., Bok, H., Brown, H., Alta Charo, R., Faden, R., Hare, J., Kahn, J., Kurtzberg, J., Manton, K. G., Moreno, J., Shanawani, H., Sulmasy, D. P., Taylor, H., & Zoloth, L. (n.d.).Publication year
2007Journal title
Journal of Medical EthicsVolume
33Issue
11Page(s)
643-646AbstractObjective: To examine important ethical and societal issues relating to the use of progenitor-cell-based strategies for disease prevention, particularly atherosclerosis. Background: Several nascent lines of evidence suggest the feasibility of using progenitor cells to reverse the health consequence of atherosclerosis. Such potential uses of progenitor cells are scientifically exciting, yet they raise important ethical and societal issues. Method: The Working Group on Ethics of Progenitor Cell-based Strategies for Disease Prevention met to discuss the relevant issues. Several drafts of a report were then circulated to the entire Working Group for comments until a consensus was reached. Results: Scientific evidence suggests the appropriateness of using progenitor-cell-based strategies for some rare conditions involving atherosclerosis, but additional preclinical data are needed for other, more prevalent conditions before human trials begin. All such trials raise a set of ethical issues, especially since trials aimed at prevention rather than treatment may involve persons who do not yet have disease but will be exposed to the risks of interventions. In addition, enrolment in prevention trials may be hazardous and harmful if participants erroneously believe experimental interventions will necessarily prevent disease. Finally, given the high prevalence of atherosclerosis, there are some important public policy implications of taking such an approach to prevention, including the sources of progenitor cells for such interventions as well as the allocation of health resources. Conclusion: Potential uses of progenitor-cell-based strategies for preventing atherosclerosis must be considered in the context of a range of social and ethical issues.Ethics of AI and Health Care: Towards a Substantive Human Rights Framework
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2023Journal title
TopoiVolume
42Issue
3Page(s)
857-866AbstractThere is enormous interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) in health care contexts. But before AI can be used in such settings, we need to make sure that AI researchers and organizations follow appropriate ethical frameworks and guidelines when developing these technologies. In recent years, a great number of ethical frameworks for AI have been proposed. However, these frameworks have tended to be abstract and not explain what grounds and justifies their recommendations and how one should use these recommendations in practice. In this paper, I propose an AI ethics framework that is grounded in substantive, human rights theory and one that can help us address these questions.Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Abstract~